9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 582X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ti Evasion Excise, Delhi informing him that one Shri Sushil Gupta of Mumbai had been manipulating records and conniving with the local excise officers of Pondicherry and Themmberwet, Meghalaya to evade the payment of central excise duty. 3. It is stated that pursuant to this information show cause notices were issued to M/s. Foto Industries, Meghalaya ('FIM') and M/s. Photo Film Industries ('PFI'), Pondicherry and Shri Sushil Gupta. The case of the Department was that FIM was a fictitious firm shown to have produced photographic films and having cleared them by claiming exemption which was not permissible. The matter was ultimately referred to the Settlement Commission, Additional Bench at Mumbai. By an order dated 11th October 2005 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Although the cinematographic films were being manufactured only at the Pondicherry unit, they were being shown as having been manufactured in Meghalaya. 5. The Appellant invoked para 9 of the guidelines issued by the Government of India on 20th June 1991 stating that he had to be given an Award equivalent to 20% of Rs. 6,17,43,310/- recovered from FIM, Meghalaya as well as the balance of the award on Rs. 8,35,96,077 recovered from PFI, Pondicherry together with interest. According to the Department they managed to recover only a sum of Rs. 8,35,96,077/- from FIM, Pondicherry. Accordingly by letter dated 12th February 2007 Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence informed the counsel for the appellant as under : "3.̳ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent in the instant case. 6. In view of the same, it has been decided that there is no justification for referring the matter to the Central Board of Excise and Customs for reconsideration of the reward amount. This issue with the approval of the Director General, DGCEI." 6. The learned Single Judge held that the Appellant had already been rewarded in terms of the applicable guidelines and that the decision of the Respondents not to award a higher amount did not suffer from any illegality. 7. We have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the Appellant. We are not persuaded to take a different view in the matter. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and on the basis of the materials placed before this Court, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
